The future of log4j 1.x series

[Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com>]

Hello,

I think it is time to discuss the future of log4j 1.x seriously.

Honestly I was surprised how quick log4j 2 appeared. Under the
assumption it takes longer I patched 1.x a little bit and we have
started to refactor 1.x into some smaller jars (I would say it is
progressed to around 80% - some minor glitches and a first release
remaining).

But with the increasing interest of people on log4j2 I was wondering
if we should really put any more effort into log4j1. It is hard to
build for most (thus the refactoring) and compared to log4j2 its
really not so good. We are a small team and we could make log4j2 a
great success if we would bundle our powers and stop releasing 1.x
series.

On the other hand, not everybody can switch to 2.x in a second.

So what to do? the usual process is to tell people a "end of life" of
1.x series and do some bugfixes. I am not sure if that makes much
sense, as the release cycles were pretty slow in the past and some
bugs are more hard to fix than the bring benefit (now as we have
lo4j2).

I would have most fun to stop maintaining log4j1 and step aboard to
log4j2. But of course, we have users.

What do others think on that matter?

Cheers
Christian

PS: I put Ivan on CC as he always has good ideas, but I am not sure if
he is subscribed to log4j-dev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org

Re: The future of log4j 1.x series

[Ralph Goers <ra...@dslextreme.com>]

Perhaps I am being overly cautious but:
1. Log4j 2 is still in beta.  It took Ceki 5 1/2 years from Logback's first release until version 1.0.  Granted, that was probably 2 or 3 years longer than needed but we've only had 3 releases over 2 months.
2. To date, I'm the only one who has committed code. There are going to be times when I am overloaded at work and may not respond to things for a few days.  I really, really want more people committing here.
3. Log4j 1.x isn't going anywhere. We can give it the same love and care it has gotten for the last 4 years for a little while longer. But let's face it, it has been in maintenance mode for a long time now. No one should expect anything new.

Ralph


On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Gary Gregory wrote:

> Yes, 1.2.x is hard to build. I would not spend time refactoring the build to produce different jars. For me, the fewer jars, the better.
> 
> I would say to folks: 1.2 is in maintenance mode based on the desire of volunteers. 2.0 is actively developed, use that.
> 
> Gary
> 
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Christian Grobmeier <gr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I think it is time to discuss the future of log4j 1.x seriously.
> 
> Honestly I was surprised how quick log4j 2 appeared. Under the
> assumption it takes longer I patched 1.x a little bit and we have
> started to refactor 1.x into some smaller jars (I would say it is
> progressed to around 80% - some minor glitches and a first release
> remaining).
> 
> But with the increasing interest of people on log4j2 I was wondering
> if we should really put any more effort into log4j1. It is hard to
> build for most (thus the refactoring) and compared to log4j2 its
> really not so good. We are a small team and we could make log4j2 a
> great success if we would bundle our powers and stop releasing 1.x
> series.
> 
> On the other hand, not everybody can switch to 2.x in a second.
> 
> So what to do? the usual process is to tell people a "end of life" of
> 1.x series and do some bugfixes. I am not sure if that makes much
> sense, as the release cycles were pretty slow in the past and some
> bugs are more hard to fix than the bring benefit (now as we have
> lo4j2).
> 
> I would have most fun to stop maintaining log4j1 and step aboard to
> log4j2. But of course, we have users.
> 
> What do others think on that matter?
> 
> Cheers
> Christian
> 
> PS: I put Ivan on CC as he always has good ideas, but I am not sure if
> he is subscribed to log4j-dev
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org 
> JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0
> Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com 
> Home: http://garygregory.com/
> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory

Re: The future of log4j 1.x series

[Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>]

Yes, 1.2.x is hard to build. I would not spend time refactoring the build
to produce different jars. For me, the fewer jars, the better.

I would say to folks: 1.2 is in maintenance mode based on the desire of
volunteers. 2.0 is actively developed, use that.

Gary

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Christian Grobmeier
<gr...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I think it is time to discuss the future of log4j 1.x seriously.
>
> Honestly I was surprised how quick log4j 2 appeared. Under the
> assumption it takes longer I patched 1.x a little bit and we have
> started to refactor 1.x into some smaller jars (I would say it is
> progressed to around 80% - some minor glitches and a first release
> remaining).
>
> But with the increasing interest of people on log4j2 I was wondering
> if we should really put any more effort into log4j1. It is hard to
> build for most (thus the refactoring) and compared to log4j2 its
> really not so good. We are a small team and we could make log4j2 a
> great success if we would bundle our powers and stop releasing 1.x
> series.
>
> On the other hand, not everybody can switch to 2.x in a second.
>
> So what to do? the usual process is to tell people a "end of life" of
> 1.x series and do some bugfixes. I am not sure if that makes much
> sense, as the release cycles were pretty slow in the past and some
> bugs are more hard to fix than the bring benefit (now as we have
> lo4j2).
>
> I would have most fun to stop maintaining log4j1 and step aboard to
> log4j2. But of course, we have users.
>
> What do others think on that matter?
>
> Cheers
> Christian
>
> PS: I put Ivan on CC as he always has good ideas, but I am not sure if
> he is subscribed to log4j-dev
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-dev-unsubscribe@logging.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-dev-help@logging.apache.org
>
>


-- 
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: <http://goog_1249600977>http://bit.ly/ECvg0
Spring Batch in Action: <http://s.apache.org/HOq>http://bit.ly/bqpbCK
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory